April 10, 2012

Via Charlie Sykes, who says: "This would be the same Democrat Milwaukee County DA's office that has been conducting a nearly two year long 'secret' John Doe investigation of Republican Governor Scott Walker. The probe has been dogged by criticism of possible partisan bias, its selective prosecution, and frequent leaks."

So, which tipping point comes first: the mass realization that nearly one's state's entire governing organizations are thoroughly corrupted by entrenched, partisan Democrats; or the entrenched, partisan Democrats so irreparably harm the state it, like California, Illinois, stands no chance of recovery?

The problem we have is that most people are busy with their lives and aren't into politics and so the only news they get is from the liberal media via TV, popular culture and whatever. The liberal media only tell them of possible conflicts when it concerns Republicans. You have to be aware of something to become upset about it.

"Media Trackers and Charlie Sykes? That's scraping the bottom of the barrel if there ever was such a thing"

-- Are you saying this is not true? If so, make a case.

Or are you just sad that it is true and need to pout by attacking the speaker instead of the argument? Oelstrom has confirmed her signature. If you think this is made up, that's clearly defamation/libel/what have you. Go, make Oelstrom a very rich woman.

The Walker approved County civil service code, specifies that the County should not "interfere with the right of any employee in the classified service to become a member of a political club, to attend political meetings, to express his or her opinion on all political subjects, and to enjoy freedom from all interference in casting his or her vote." So, there’s that…

I think we now have the right to know if these folks are the ones doing the anonymous leaking on the investigation. If they are, it puts to question whether the leaks were politically calculated (they almost always are, when money doesn't change hands).

The papers reporting on the leaks owe it to their readers to assure them that they have not been receiving fruit from a poisoned tree.

I find the witch-huntery behind the who signed the recall petition more than a little disturbing. I don't give a flying fig about the politics of a reporter, or a civil servant, as long as they are doing their job to the best of their ability.

It's unfortunate that someone isn't brave enough to say, when called on the "crime" of signing the petition to state plainly that as a citizen of this state, they have every right to participate in every aspect of the Democratic Process. The Outrage Machine that is working overtime on the Right side of the Politicial Spectrum re: Signing a petition and on the Left side of the Political Spectrum re: Phony candidates in primaries can go take a leap. Or better yet, STFU.

MadisonMan: Normally, I'd agree. But, we learned from Prop 8 that signatures are a valid reason to oppose individuals in their jobs, harass their children at home and work to get them fired.

I think since we're simply saying: "Hey, these people who signed it are also in the position to do some pretty bad things, like trump up false investigations on the sitting governor to damage him politically, maybe, someone should make sure that's not happening?"

I think that's a perfectly valid thing to use the signatures for. Why should the right "unilaterally disarm" politically, after all? Now, if we actually believed the shoe would not drop harder on the other foot, maybe I could see not putting their feet to the fire. But, let's face it -- the left has not clothed themselves in glory when it comes to maturely handling dissent via public petitions.

With just that bit of information, no one can tell! That's why you can't compare "people who did not sign" with "people who signed" and make the claim that the first group holds the opposite belief of the second. They may, they may not. You have no proof. Signing the petition makes a much stronger case for holding a belief than not (though, I'm sure, we can come up with other reasons people might sign it.)

People who work for the State, or the country, as nevertheless citizens and are allowed to participate in the Democracy.

The military standard is that you are allowed to participate in Democracy anonymously only.

So voting is in. Demonstrating is okay as long as you are in civilian clothes. Handing out literature, etc, is all good, as long as you don't identify yourself as military or give your name (which can be used to look up and find you are military).

That seems like good ethics.

These individuals are supposed to be investigating Scott Walker. Their signatures were used as part of the total requesting his recall, and the total number was used as Public Relations to signify a huge number. Thus, it was a violation of ethics for them to sign their name.

Aside from that, by signing their name, they have undermined Democracy by giving the understandable impression they are not able to separate their personal views from their professional views. Democracy only works if people do their best to follow the rules and standards. They only do their best to follow the rules and standards if they trust the officials, and if the officials act with good ethical sense.

People are imperfect, yes, but the only way to say this is no big deal is if you really don't think things through at all, or if you think things through but care more about liberals gaining/retaining power than you do about Democracy itself.

I don't recall that he accused Falk of fellating the union bosses to get their endorsement. Didn't make fun of her kids or call her a witch.

Oh please. Charlie Sykes personally led the recall of Tom Ament, pimping it for months on his radio program, and even headlined rallies. Republicans tried recalling Doyle twice, Jim Holperin twice, and 3 more Democrats last summer. To come out now with all this tailgunner shit on who signed a recall is beyond hypocrisy. They never cared a whit about someone that signed a recall against a Democrat. And notice there is no database available for people that did sign a recall against Democrats.

Aside from that, by signing their name, they have undermined Democracy by giving the understandable impression they are not able to separate their personal views from their professional views.

This impression is understandable if you think the least of people who have the audacity to hold a political opinion contrary to your own. That's a lot easier to do if you demonize them for signing. And that's what the Outrage Machine is trying to do.

The "military standard" has different concerns and goals. An overriding concern for them and us, is that the military not become a political entity--and we not become subject to a military coup.

Sgt. Stein in San Diego understands this, but he chooses to go his own way. He is engaged in multiple open actions that directly attach and undermine his commander in chief. His actions are far more than signing a petition.

"Sgt Stein--you had all the opportunity and warning in the world to continue political activities without trying to actively undermine your Commander in Chief. Do you think you'd get away with the same thing against your Colonel? Your SgtMajor? Hey, your fucking gunny?"

Where civilian political speech is permitted, as it appears to be here, then at least presenting both sides of the story would be informational.

SteveR said... What does it say that these folks don't seem to either care or are unaware of how this appears? Obviously "inside Wisconsin", this is just fine, I mean would you expect otherwise?

Kit said... The Walker approved County civil service code, specifies that the County should not "interfere with the right of any employee in the classified service to become a member of a political club, to attend political meetings, to express his or her opinion on all political subjects, and to enjoy freedom from all interference in casting his or her vote."

"Neither can you. But at least we'd have some information to weigh against this one-sided "story.""

-- That... doesn't make any sense. This story is not about an overwhelming problem in the office of corruption. It is that these specific people are acting in a way that makes people suspicious, especially piled on top of the mysterious leaks and innuendo coming out of the office as well. That's the story; are these people (leakers and signatories) the same?

This impression is understandable if you think the least of people who have the audacity to hold a political opinion contrary to your own. That's a lot easier to do if you demonize them for signing. And that's what the Outrage Machine is trying to do.

Reject it!

It's not just about HOLDING a political opinion, though, is it? It's about being a political ACTIVIST. Political activists lose the benefit of the doubt when it comes to political motivations in other aspects of their duties. Sorry if you disagree, but otherwise you are being a willing sucker, a useful idiot.

It's about being a political ACTIVIST. Political activists lose the benefit of the doubt when it comes to political motivations in other aspects of their duties

Riiiight. You can vote, contribute time, money, and resources without a motivation, but signing a recall paper is activism. Give me a break. How much self respect do you lose when you post something so idiotic?

It's unfortunate that someone isn't brave enough to say, when called on the "crime" of signing the petition to state plainly that as a citizen of this state, they have every right to participate in every aspect of the Democratic Process.

Your straw man assertions notwithstanding, let's not forget how we got here. We're dealing with these issues because one group decided to abuse the state's recall process instead of waiting for the normal election cycle to make their case. At this point, my response to you would be along the lines of what I've heard from those who support the recalls; "if you don't like the law, change it."

And I say this as someone who would never had considered signing a recall petition for Jim Doyle despite my extreme dislike for the man. At this point, it's hard to imagine ever going back to that way of thinking.

Riiiight. You can vote, contribute time, money, and resources without a motivation, but signing a recall paper is activism. Give me a break. How much self respect do you lose when you post something so idiotic?

The public/private distinction isn't difficult for people without a severe mental handicap to understand. I'm sorry you're having trouble with it.

It's irrelevant what the "position" of the DA's who did not sign the recall petition is. Presumably they have some feelings on the matter. The point is (1) they should set those feelings aside in conducting the investigation and (2) should not publish the feelings or advocate a position.

If they can not set the predisposition aside, they should either withdraw from the case or find another job.

Going out on a limb here, and guess you had no problem with the state's top law enforcement official, and members of our state supreme court going to tea party rallies. Correct?

Well, I hold elected officials to a different standard, as they are obviously politically motivated. Nobody expects elected officials not to be politically biased. Well, you do, apparently, but there's that mental issue, so you get a pass.

The signatures seem to reflect an office that skews well Left. My understanding is that the same is true of the full-time lawyers at the Justice department in Washington. That creates bias in the system.

Some of you are missing the point, here. Either accidentally or on purpose.

I could care less if people in the Milwaukee DA office signed the recall papers. Its their right. I also dont care how they vote. But, on the same hand, the people in that office that did sign the recall then should have no business conducting the John Doe investigation involving Walker's office as County Exec. Its a ridiculous conflict of interest.

Going out on a limb here, and guess you had no problem with the state's top law enforcement official, and members of our state supreme court going to tea party rallies. Correct?

The state's top law enforcement official and state supreme court members are elected positions. They are accountable for their actions in elections. Staffers and assistant DA's are not elected positions. They are hired positions. They are only accountable to the DA. Which explains why this is a big deal.

Riiiight. You can vote, contribute time, money, and resources without a motivation, but signing a recall paper is activism. Give me a break. How much self respect do you lose when you post something so idiotic?

Quite honestly, they shouldn't be contributing money or time, either. If people lose faith in the impartiality of non-elected officials, you have major problems.

My understanding is that the same is true of the full-time lawyers at the Justice department in Washington. That creates bias in the system.

It's becoming clear that what we have is a bureacracy nearly in open rebellion against its democractically elected executive. That's what I find so troubling about this recall. If Walker is ousted, then as a practical matter there is really no popular control over the government anymore.

It's becoming clear that what we have is a bureacracy nearly in open rebellion against its democractically elected executive. That's what I find so troubling about this recall. If Walker is ousted, then as a practical matter there is really no popular control over the government anymore.

I had someone tell me the other day that they feel any state employee that signed the recall should be fired if Walker is re-elected. His reasoning: how can you expect quality work from people who hate the guts of the executive in charge?

I dont necessarily agree with that stance, but it definitely makes you think about it, especially with these new revelations about the Milwaukee DA office.

I had someone tell me the other day that they feel any state employee that signed the recall should be fired if Walker is re-elected. His reasoning: how can you expect quality work from people who hate the guts of the executive in charge?

Are they then re-hired when Walker is defeated in a subsequent re-election bid?

My assumption is that most people working for the State -- or for anyone -- are too busy in their jobs to care about the Governor.

"I had someone tell me the other day that they feel any state employee that signed the recall should be fired if Walker is re-elected. His reasoning: how can you expect quality work from people who hate the guts of the executive in charge?"

That is more true than you know. I come from a family of teachers and hear the stories about what the union is telling them to do. Or more accuratly, not to do. Basically they are supposed to do the bare minimum amount of work. Things like that. Things that would get you fired if they had a real-world job.

I would think that any impropriety lies in whether any of the attorneys actually investigation Walker signed the petition. If none of them are involved in that matter, then I don't see an issue. Accordingly, there is a problem if any of the same attorneys who signed the petition are also involved in the investigation.

The criminal corruption probe and legal defense fund set up by Walker: Not a big deal. The troubling part is who signed a recall petition. A recall petition against a Republican that is. Cuz I have PRINCIPLES yo.

The criminal corruption probe and legal defense fund set up by Walker: Not a big deal. The troubling part is who signed a recall petition. A recall petition against a Republican that is. Cuz I have PRINCIPLES yo.

Yes, how DARE a Republican defend himself legally!! Doesn't he know that trials of republicans are the purest expression of Volksgemeinschaft, why, to defend yourself in court is an atrocity against democracy!

I had someone tell me the other day that they feel any state employee that signed the recall should be fired if Walker is re-elected. His reasoning: how can you expect quality work from people who hate the guts of the executive in charge?

That's just a terrible idea. Close advisors are political appointees, but career civil service employees shouldn't be swept out for political beliefs. That's machine politics.

The criminal corruption probe and legal defense fund set up by Walker: Not a big deal.

Jeez, Garage. We shut you down on this yesterday, didn't we?

Once again - slowly -, When Walker gets indicted, get back to us on it.

In the meantime, because he is being investigated means jack shit. See Sarah Palin. Wisconsin law allows the Governor to set up such a fund if he's under investigation. I mean, please tell me if I'm misinformed. You seem to have a problem with people retaining the best legal representation at their disposal in the course of what is simply an "investigation."

You need to get back down to Florida, garage. Join up with the lynch mob down there. They're your kind of people.

(BTW, one of the primary reasons Palin resigned was that it would have been illegal to set up a legal defense fund, in the face of what were unfounded allegations.)

I could care less if people in the Milwaukee DA office signed the recall papers. Its their right. I also dont care how they vote. But, on the same hand, the people in that office that did sign the recall then should have no business conducting the John Doe investigation involving Walker's office as County Exec. Its a ridiculous conflict of interest

Oh come on Jason, liberals are good!

If you assume that liberals are Good, then you assume there's no point digging into a story where liberals are accused of malfeasance. There is no point questioning their motives-- its just a great big waste of your time to do so.

"Walker is the first Wisconsin governor to have to set up a legal defense. Congrats."

-- So, you mean Walker is the first Wisconsin governor to be relentlessly attacked via the legal realm? Well, if it all comes to nothing (See: Palin, Sarah), then will you admit that Walker is the first Wisconsin governor to have to fend off political hatchet jobs leveled through the court system, which wasted the state's time, money and valuable resources?

Or, is having to defend oneself now proof of guilt?

Isn't it interesting who gets the presumption of innocence, and who does not?

First intelligent thing you've written in months, garage. I'm hoping that the above is the spark of gnosis in your Walker fevered brain that you and your ilk made made Walker a national political rallying point.

The "Cause" is in a win-win situation. If Walker wins, he will be able to do anything he can get through the legislature. If he loses, he retains martyr status, and works as a rallying point against public unionism.

@MojoThanks for being of one of the few honest Walker supporters. You do not care if Walker is guilty of anything. Even if it's shown he is, he will still forever be a martyr. He stepped on the necks of some liberals and unions, and that's all that matters.

Walker is the first Wisconsin governor to have to set up a legal defense. Congrats.

Oh, sweet jumping Obama on a pogo stick, not this crap again. Apparently, being bitch-slapped on this yesterday did no good.

First of all, slick, I think you mean "legal defense FUND". Secondly, my point from yesterday stands - considering that your side has basically called the government slugs to engage in open rebellion against a legally-elected governor, Walker would be an utter fool not to build some sort of firewall between himself and foam-flecked lunatics like you who would happily throw him in jail for carrying 11 items in the 10 items or less line.

And why? Because he's actually trying to bring some fiscal sanity to your cold storage hellhole of a state. Remember the old H.L. Mencken quip about democracy being the way of giving the people the government they deserve good and hard? I almost hope Walker does get recalled, just to speed up the inevitable collapse.

Don't forget Sen. Ted Stevens[?] of Alaska who was tried for corruption during his reelection. He lost and later the prosecrutors were found to have committed gross misconduct. Mission accomplished anyway.

DAs should have the right to sign petitions, but any DA who signs one on a controversial issue should be forbidden to work on any case related to the issue. If necessary, they should get leave without pay, if it becomes too difficult to find cases they don't conflict with.

Yeah. Stevens wasn't even exonerated while he was alive, if I recall. It wasn't until he died that the investigation resolved, and then, they got off lucky because he was too dead to rip them a new one.